cxf-servlet versus arbitrary beans

[Benson Margulies <bi...@basistech.com>]

Glen,

I think your explanation would be clearer if you highlighted the
difference between 

<context-param>
		<param-name>contextConfigLocation</param-name>
		<param-value>WEB-INF/beans.xml</param-value>
	</context-param>

and 

<init-param>
<param-name>config-location</param-name>
<param-value>/org/apache/cxf/systest/servlet/cxf-servlet.xml</param-valu
e>
</init-param>

I find it kind of counter-intuitive that we use two different ways of
doing this, instead of one param to specify which type of init to do,
and another param to specift the name of the bean file.

The reader shouldn't have to stare at the two web.xml files and figure
it out.

--benson
 

Re: cxf-servlet versus arbitrary beans

[Glen Mazza <gl...@verizon.net>]

Am Donnerstag, den 22.11.2007, 22:30 -0500 schrieb Benson Margulies:
>
> I find it kind of counter-intuitive that we use two different ways of
> doing this, instead of one param to specify which type of init to do,
> and another param to specift the name of the bean file.
> 

It's not that bad.  We're following the standard web.xml Spring
configuration process in the one case (that's how their listener obtains
the config file, as opposed to a servlet), and the standard method of
sending a parameter to a servlet in another.

But you never really need to specify cxf-servlet.xml anyway, because
that's the default name that CXF looks for.

Glen